intersections
Autumn 2012
“If Men Should Fight”
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
By Annie Powers
University of California, Berkeley
“A Duel!!”1
I
n late March of 1854, the press burst with the news, alerting the public to a
duel that had allegedly taken place between Congressmen Francis B. Cutting
of New York and John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky. It was immediately clear
that their conflict had arisen out of a vicious debate in Congress over the KansasNebraska Act, but little else about the affair was certain. Confusion reigned and a
flurry of rumors circulated. Had Breckenridge been shot in the neck? Was he
killed or wounded? Had Cutting emerged victorious? Or was the entire affair
little more than a hoax? The situation became so dramatic that it even appeared
in a theatrical advertisement, which beckoned people to see a play that promised
to be just as exciting as the purported duel. By early April, the dust had settled,
and it was clear that no bullets had been exchanged. But two key questions
remained for those readers who had followed the story in the pages of the
1
“A Duel!!” Ripley Bee, April 1, 1854.
2
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
popular press. How would they, the public, choose to interpret the duel? And
why did these two Congressmen feel compelled to resort to arms as a way to
resolve their political differences?2
The answers lie in the development of Congressional duels in the 1850s as a
function of mounting sectional tension. Three confrontations arising out of
debates in Congress offer apt illustrations of the shifting role and perception of
these political duels. The first, between Northern Congressman William Bissell
and Southern Senator Jefferson Davis, emerged as a result of debate over the
Compromise of 1850 but was ultimately resolved by President Zachary Taylor.
In the wake of the conflict, newspapers North and South condemned dueling in
general terms and applauded the reconciliation of the parties as a symbolic
settlement of sectional differences. In the second conflict, an argument in
Congress between Cutting and Breckenridge over the Kansas-Nebraska bill
nearly led to a duel. In response, the Northern and Southern press criticized
dueling as an institution, just as they had done after the altercation between
Bissell and Davis. Unlike its 1850 predecessor, however, the CuttingBreckenridge conflict was represented in the Northern press as a symptom of
sectional discord. Southern newspapers noted and reinforced this interpretation,
commenting most heavily on the duel by censuring Northern coverage because it
focused too heavily on the sectional implications of the affair. Finally, the third
confrontation occurred after Massachusetts Congressman Anson Burlingame
condemned South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks for his violent caning of
Charles Sumner on the floor of the Senate. Brooks, feeling that his honor had
been besmirched by Burlingame’s speech, challenged him to a duel. The conflict
between the two – from the speech that precipitated the challenge to Brooks’
ultimate refusal to meet Burlingame – enacted the escalating tension between
North and South. And both the Northern and Southern press assessed the duel as
fundamentally sectional in character. By this time, Southern papers had dropped
their criticisms of affairs of honor, while Northern newspapers split – some still
staunchly opposed to dueling, and others beginning to perceive it as a legitimate
way of combating Southern aggression. Southerners, in turn, saw the duel as
revealing the hostility of the North toward Southern society. Between 1850 and
1856, Congressional duels became sectionalized in both form and popular
perception, as exhibited prominently in the Davis-Bissell, Cutting-Breckenridge,
and Brooks-Burlingame conflicts.
2
Ibid; “Excitement at Washington,” Daily Scioto Gazette, March 30, 1854; “The Duel Yesterday,” New York Daily
Times, March 30, 1854.
3
intersections
Autumn 2012
In antebellum America, dueling stemmed from a language and code of honor that
dictated the behavior of so-called gentlemen. In the culture of honor,
appearances were paramount, and everyday behavior constituted a ritualized
performance of respectable conduct. The gravest insult to a man was to claim
that his outward demeanor was a false projection and his internal self was thus
disreputable and ungentlemanly. Accordingly, duels nearly always began with
the pronunciation of a lie – that is, proclaiming that some aspect of the
gentleman’s façade was false, deceitful, and worthy of scorn. The lie could take
many forms. Calling a man a coward or puppy, stating that his opinions were
incorrect in a newspaper or public space, pulling his nose and thereby
compromising his external appearance, or otherwise using insulting language
could all merit a challenge to a duel. In order to maintain his claim to honor, a
gentleman then had to clarify whether the man giving the lie meant to do so, and
if he had, ask him to retract his statement. If the offender refused to withdraw
the comments in question, the insulted party was obligated to challenge his
antagonist to a duel in order to prove his honor. Although most duels were
resolved before any bullets were exchanged, the practice nevertheless allowed a
gentleman to profess his courage by confronting death – or at least confronting
the prospect of engaging in a stand-off that might lead to death – without fear.
The intention of a duel was not to kill your antagonist or seriously injure him,
but for both parties to lay claim to genuine courage in a moment in which truth
was bared in the face of death.3
Dueling between 1850 and 1856 was geographically diverse and occurred for a
variety of reasons. Affairs of honor were most prevalent among Southern
gentleman, but Northern men, particularly those in public life, also spoke the
language of honor and engaged in duels throughout the 1850s. Despite its
increasing illegality in states throughout the Union, dueling was a phenomenon
that ultimately traversed sectional lines. Not only did affairs of honor occur
nationwide, they were fought for many reasons. Some of the most commonly
cited causes of duels in this period include women, drink, verbal affrays,
newspaper editorials, and politics. Although they were very uncommon, the
3
There are many studies that discuss nineteenth century honor culture. Joanne B. Freeman’s Affairs of honor (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) discusses the code of honor in the early republic and its role in national
politics. John Hope Franklin’s The militant South, 1800 – 1861 (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1956), Betrarm Wyatt-Brown’s Southern honor: ethics and behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1982), and Steven M. Stowe’s Intimacy and power in the Old South: ritual in the lives of the planters
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) are the seminal examinations of the role of honor culture and
dueling in the antebellum South. One of the most compelling studies of the subject, from which much of this
paragraph derives its content is Kenneth S. Greenberg’s Honor and slaver: lies, duels, noses, masks, dressing as a woman,
gifts, strangers, humanitarianism, death, slave rebellions, the proslavery argument, baseball, hunting, and gambling in the Old
South (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 1-23.
4
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
duels most prominently featured in the press ended in death for at least one of
the parties. For example, in 1855, two members of the New York Shakespeare
Club, one of whom was drunk, became embroiled in a duel over membership
fees that ended in the death of the challenger. Another fatal duel occurred in
Louisiana in 1851 between Dr. Thomas Hunt, brother of Whig Congressional
candidate Theodore Hunt, and J. W. Frost, editor of the New Orleans Crescent.
After Frost used words personally offensive to Dr. Hunt in a speech outside the
nominating convention, the latter challenged the former and mortally wounded
him. In California, Edward Gilbert, editor of the Alta California, challenged State
Senator J. W. Denver. Both were badly injured, and Gilbert died shortly after
being shot. The majority of cases, however, did not result in death. Pennsylvania
Senator James Cooper challenged Mr. McMichael, who ran the Philadelphiabased North American and United States Gazette, to a duel, but the newspaper editor
declined to meet the Senator. In 1854, two students of Jefferson College, one
from Baltimore and the other from Pennsylvania, fought a duel over a lady that
both men had courted. One of the antagonists was wounded seriously, but not
fatally. John Daniel, editor of the Richmond Examiner, and William Scott, member
of the Virginia House of Delegates, were to fight a duel but it was amicably
arranged before it came to blows. From New York to Virginia to California,
duels in the 1850s transcended geographical boundaries.4






I
n Congress, affairs of honor differed markedly from those that occurred
amongst men in the general public. Congressional duels were overwhelmingly a result of political disagreements, were widely covered in the press
regardless of their result, and only rarely ended in the exchange of bullets. For
instance, a duel nearly erupted between Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
and Mississippi Senator Henry Foote over the admission of California in 1850.
Another took place after a debate in the House about the 1851 River and Harbor
4
“New York, June 6,” Boston Daily Advertiser, June 7, 1855 (Shakespeare Club members); “The New Orleans Duel,”
Daily Ohio Statesman, July 26, 1851 (Frost-Hunt); “Fatal Duel,” Sacramento Union, August 14, 1852; “Senator
Cooper, and the Code of Honor,” Daily Cleveland Herald, September 29, 1854 (Cooper-McMichael); Vermont Patriot
and State Gazette, May 5, 1854 (Jefferson College students); Boston Daily Atlas, April 4, 1851 (Daniel-Scott).
Traditionally, duels in the antebellum era have been understood as a phenomenon largely confined to the South.
Some scholars, however, have expressed skepticism about this claim and argued that dueling was a more national
experience than most Southern historians have admitted. In particular, Mark E. Neely, Jr. discusses the
participation of Northerners in political duels that occurred during the Kansas-Nebraska controversy, and Michael
C. C. Adams’ reflects on the existence of a national culture of political violence. See Neely, Jr., “The KansasNebraska Act in American Political Culture: The Road to Bladensburg and the Appeal of the Independent Democrats,”
in The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854, eds. John R. Wunder and Joann M. Ross (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
2008), 13-46; See Adams, Our masters the Rebels: A speculation on Union military failure in the East, 1861-1865
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978).
5
intersections
Autumn 2012
Bill, when North Carolina Congressman Edward Stanley and Alabama
Congressman Samuel Inge exchanged a single ineffective shot each and then
promptly reconciled. During debates discussing Southern disunion in 1852,
South Carolina Senator Robert Rhett declined to fight a duel with Alabama
Senator Jeremiah Clemens. Another almost occurred between Kansas Free State
advocate James Lane and Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas after the latter
rejected a petition submitted by the former to the Senate. Massachusetts Senator
Henry Wilson refused a challenge from South Carolina Congressman Preston
Brooks, which was issued after Wilson condemned Brooks’ caning of Sumner.
Examining these duels together, it becomes clear that there are three key factors
that determined the nature of Congressional affairs of honor: whether or not the
challenge was accepted, the tenor of the political questions before the House or
Senate, and the sectional identity of the two antagonists. Notably, the DavisBissell, Cutting-Breckenridge, and Brooks-Burlingame conflicts all involved the
acceptance of the duel challenge, occurred in the midst of considerable sectional
tension in Congress, and pitted a Northerner and Southerner against one
another. While other Congressional duels in this period were characterized by
one or two of these key features, only the Davis-Bissell, Cutting-Breckenridge,
and Brooks-Burlingame duels possessed all three. Thus these three affairs are
emblematic of the greater trends that distinguished Congressional duels between
1850 and 1856 while remaining unique in their convergence of all three
determining factors. Perhaps for this reason, these duels were more extensively
covered and discussed in the popular press than any others that occurred out of
Congressional conflicts in the 1850s, and they therefore serve as indications of
both the popular perception and function of dueling throughout the period.5
The interaction between Congress and the press in the 1850s made the principals
in these duels focus closely on their audience. Prior to the 1850s, Congressmen
and Senators had a heavy hand in preparing their speeches for reproduction in the
national press organs that covered politics in the capital. Accordingly, speeches
were modified by members of Congress before publication, meaning that an
oration given on the House or Senate floor that catered to other politicians could
be altered for or withheld from consumption by local constituents in one’s state
or district. In this way, compromise remained possible, because national parties
could represent a different attitude toward a particular issue in Congress than the
one projected to voters at home. However, this process underwent a marked
5
Daily South Carolinian, April 1, 1850 (Foote-Benton); Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, February 26, 1851 (StanleyInge); “Disgraceful Scene in the Senate,” Trenton State Gazette, March 1, 1852 (Clemens-Rhett); New York Daily
Times, April 28, 1856 (Lane-Douglas); North American and United States Gazette, May 31, 1856 (Brooks-Wilson).
6
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
shift in the late 1840s. New journals and newspapers emerged, including the
Annals of Congress and the Congressional Globe, which were dedicated exclusively to
reporting on Congressional proceedings. And the collection and consolidation of
Congressional oratory was facilitated by the fact that it became increasingly
acceptable for House or Senate members to deliver a pre-written speech, a
practice which, in the earlier antebellum period, had been perceived as absurd
and greeted with laughter. As a result, the printed speeches closely resembled, in
both form and content, those that were given on the floor of Congress. This
meant that the nature of Congressional debate shifted. Because words spoken in
Congress were published with little modification, representatives in the House
and Senate began to use the floor as a stage, performing not for the men around
them but instead for the general public. Thus members of Congress catered to
the interests of specific swathes of public opinion rather than attempting to
negotiate compromises with fellow politicians. As a result, Congressmen could
not appeal to differing groups with divergent opinions, and national coalitions
fractured as sectional conflict mounted. In this context, for Davis and Bissell,
Cutting and Breckenridge, and Brooks and Burlingame, the audience of their
speeches, debates, and ultimately, their duels, was less their fellow Congressmen
than it was the newspapers and the public that read them. The opinions of the
popular press and its readership became just as crucial as the speeches and
conflicts themselves.6
The Davis-Bissell duel arose out of the intense debates in Congress over the
Compromise of 1850. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, settling the
Mexican-American War, brought in a massive amount of new territory and thus
raised the question of whether slavery would be permitted or restricted therein.
President Zachary Taylor, a Southern Whig, began to believe that aggressive
slaveholders were agitating for slavery in the territories and, in so doing, causing
political tumult in the Union. Accordingly, he proposed that California should be
admitted to the Union immediately and New Mexico advised to apply for
statehood either as a free or slave state. This plan, predating the Compromise of
1850, evaded several key issues and took the problem of legislating slavery out of
Congress by bypassing the territorial stage. Taylor hoped that this would settle
political conflict over the Mexican Cession and avoid debate over whether or not
Congress had the power to determine the status of slavery in the territories.
Southerners were incensed at Taylor’s plan, which raised the prospect of two
6
Thomas C. Leonard, The power of the press: the birth of American political reporting (New York: Oxford University
Press: 1986), 70-95.
7
intersections
Autumn 2012
new free states while failing to address the slave trade in D. C., the problem of a
harsher fugitive slave law, and the Texas-New Mexico border dispute.7
Into this tense political climate stepped Henry Clay. Introduced as a series of
measures in January 1850 by Clay and spearheaded by Senator Stephen A.
Douglas, the Compromise of 1850 was intended to settle debate over the slavery
issue and quell sectional unrest. Passed in separate pieces by differing coalitions
of Democrats and Whigs, the Compromise as it was enacted in September
admitted California as a free state, organized the territories of Utah and New
Mexico and dictated that the status of slavery there be determined by popular
sovereignty, passed a more stringent Fugitive Slave Act, abolished the slave trade
(but not slavery) in the capital, resolved the border dispute between Texas and
New Mexico, and allowed for federal assumption of the debts that Texas had
incurred while existing as an independent state. Still, the Compromise as a whole
was opposed in February and March by Southern radicals like Senators Jeremiah
Clemens of Alabama, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and John C. Calhoun of
South Carolina. They argued that the North would gain control of the
government through the admission of more free states and claimed that disunion
would come if the North continued to debate over the slavery question.
According to these Southerners, the North must let the question of slavery rest,
because continual agitation might lead to emancipation or abolition, an event that
would force the South to secede.8
The conflict between Illinois Congressman William Bissell and Senator Jefferson
Davis emerged in the context of disunionist sentiment wrought by disagreement
over the Compromise of 1850. On February 21, 1850, Bissell, a Democrat, rose
in the House to deliver a speech entitled “The Slave Question.” Focusing on the
words of Congressman Thomas Clingman of North Carolina and Congressman
Albert Brown of Mississippi, Bissell objected to Southern representatives who
consistently discussed the dissolution of the Union in reaction to the
Compromise of 1850. Bissell explained that Southern Congressmen cited,
“alleged aggressions by the non-slaveholding States upon the rights of the
slaveholding, in respect to slavery,” as their justification for disunionist
sentiment. But Bissell disagreed with this logic, asserting that Southerners were
incorrect because Northerners had relatively little power in government and
7
John C. Waugh, On the brink of civil war: the Compromise of 1850 and how it changed the course of American history
(Wilmington, Del: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2003), 33-43; James McPherson, Battle cry of freedom: the Civil War era
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 70-71.
8
Waugh, 50-51, 85-97; McPherson, 70-71; Congressional Globe, Senate, 31st Congress, 1st Session, March 4, 1850,
451-456.
8
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
could thus not act against slavery in any meaningful way. Rather, Bissell
contended, Southerners reigned in the seats of power. In particular, he pointed
to the domination – both contemporaneously and historically – of the
presidency, cabinet, and diplomatic posts by Southerners and commented that
the many Northerners had supported the annexation of Texas and other slave
territories. He questioned, “Is this northern ‘aggression’ upon the rights of the
South on the slavery question? Is this one of the acts of ‘aggression’ on that
subject which is to justify gentlemen of the South in dissolving the Union?” For
Bissell, it certainly was not. Bissell’s statements forcefully suggested that
Southerners were false about their perceived power in the national government. 9
At the end of his speech, Bissell responded to Virginia Congressman James
Seddon, who, “disparaged the North for the benefit of the South,” by focusing
too closely on the retreat of the 2nd Indiana during the 1847 Battle of Buena
Vista, a key moment in the Mexican-American War. Seddon, according to
Bissell, unduly glorified a Mississippi regiment for allegedly plugging the gap in
the line left by the fleeing Indiana troops. Bissell argued that although Seddon
said that all of the “troops of the North” gave way, the space left by the Indiana
regiment was actually filled not by Mississippi men, but by the 2nd Illinois – of
which Bissell was Colonel – and a portion of the 1st Illinois. This comment
implied that the Mississippians were not as brave as Seddon had purported them
to be – and that their claims to valor were, therefore, in some way false. In the
language of honor, this was an insult that amounted to an accusation of lying. But
for Bissell, the action of the Illinois men didn’t necessarily malign the character
of the Mississippians; rather, it simply proved the strength and military ability of
Northern soldiers. Bissell concluded by asserting that given the demonstrable
nerve of Northern men, “should danger threaten the Union from any source, or
in any quarter,” Illinois and other states would not shy from supplying as many
troops as necessary, “to march where that danger may be, to return when it is
passed, or return no more.” In Bissell’s eyes, although the North did not exhibit
domination in government, it did possess a reserve of strength, which it would
use to defend the Union at all costs against anyone – in this case, Southern
slaveholders – who might secede.10
9
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 31st Congress, 1st Session, February 21, 1850, 225-228. The
argument Bissell made about the preponderance of Southerners in seats of power was a recurring theme of the slave
power argument, whose proponents posited that slavery was a problematic institution because it gave the South
disproportionate influence in government and thus threatened American republicanism. See Leonard L. Richards,
The slave power: the free North and southern domination, 1780-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,
2000).
10
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 31st Congress, 1st Session, February 21, 1850, 225-228.
9
intersections
Autumn 2012
Rather than disputing Bissell’s suggestion that he and other early disunionists
were false in their arguments about the distribution of power among
Northerners and Southerners, Jefferson Davis, a Democratic Senator, reacted
more strongly to the Illinois Congressman’s depiction of the Mississippians at the
Battle of Buena Vista. In this way, Davis chose to focus on what he perceived as
insults to his state’s military prowess instead of the attacks on his political
thought. Davis, the colonel of the Mississippi regiment to which Bissell had
referred, sent a letter to the Congressman on February 22 in order to ascertain
whether or not his speech had included the statement that the Mississippi troops
were uninvolved in replacing the 2nd Indiana in the front lines at Buena Vista.
Bissell reiterated what he had said in debate about the Illinois troops, firmly
explaining that his intention was not to insult the Mississippi men. Finding this
answer unsatisfactory, Davis challenged Bissell to a duel. Bissell readily accepted,
and they arranged to fight on the morning of February 28. However, President
Zachary Taylor, Davis’ father-in-law, heard about the affair and interposed
personally. Although the precise nature of Taylor’s involvement remains unclear,
it is almost certain that he alerted the police to the duel, as the practice was
illegal in the District of Columbia. In this way, Taylor forced the parties to
reconcile in order to avoid arrest. Davis retracted his challenge and Bissell again
avowed that his remarks were not intended to detract from the valor of the
Mississippi soldiers, and as a result, the duel was prevented and the affair
“honorably adjusted.” On February 28, Bissell rose in the House and affirmed
that he believed the Mississippi troops behaved as gallantly at Buena Vista as any
other regiment present.11
In their assessment of the altercation between Davis and Bissell, Northern and
Southern newspapers offered a generalized critique of dueling. New Hampshire’s
Farmer’s Cabinet asserted that the Congressman and the Senator “disgrace
themselves in thus attempting to bolster up their reputation. Their example is
pernicious, and ought to be detested, and everywhere reprobated.” Those
engaging in duels were depicted here as utterly contemptible and the practice
implicitly portrayed as inherently disreputable. Other papers took a different
approach in their denunciations of dueling. The Whig Albany Evening Journal
commented that it did not want to accept that a duel had occurred between
Bissell and Davis, “only because we are not willing to believe both of the
gentlemen insane.” Similarly, the anti-slavery New York Tribune remarked that
“men of their ability and power should not trifle with life, health, and
11
“Rumored Duel Explained,” Natchez Semi-Weekly Courier, March 15, 1850; “Settlement of the Duel,” New York
Herald, March 4, 1850; Daily National Intelligencer, March 6, 1850; Benjamin C. Truman, The Field of Honor (New
York: Fords, Howard, & Hulbert, 1884), 549-550; Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 31st Congress,
1st Session, February 28, 1850, 195-196.
10
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
representative responsibility.” Both of these Northern newspapers highlighted
the irrationality or absurdity of using a duel to solve a disagreement –
involvement in one was at best reckless and at worst a symptom of mental
illness. The Baltimore Sun, an independent, cheap daily that tended to favor the
Democrats, made this point more explicit by asserting that a conception of honor
should never, “compel two really generous and courageous men to stand up
against each other, at fifteen paces. A duel, at all events, is no historical proof,
and scarcely settles an individual conviction.” For the Sun, not only did dueling
fail to resolve the root of a conflict, but it did not offer a representation of true
courage as the code of honor insisted it would. Instead, real valor was proven by
the rejection of dueling and the honor culture that underpinned the practice. In
the eyes of the press, dueling reflected poorly on its participants and did not
determine any real solutions to an argument, so it could not prove the bravery
and honor for which it was intended.12
In many Northern Whig papers, this pragmatic critique of dueling also arose in
discussion of President Taylor, a Southern Whig, and his involvement in the
prevention of the affair. The Vermont Watchman and State Journal commended
Taylor for a job “well done” in settling the fight. More than that, newspapers like
Ohio’s Daily Scioto Gazette commented that there was no one, “as capable and
appropriate, as a peace-maker,” between Bissell and Davis, who fought, “bravely
under his [Taylor’s] command as the fatherly Old Chief who led the victorious
army at Buena Vista.” Similarly, the Milwaukee Daily Sentinel printed a glowing
assessment of Taylor – in his role as both President and “glorious Chief” of the
military – as the most “fitting mediator” for such a conflict, because both Bissell
and Davis, “must have felt that when Old Zack directed them to lay down their
arms…they could do so without shame.” In a later article, the Sentinel credited
Taylor with sparing, “public morality…the shock of a barbarian duel.” Echoing
the general critique of dueling exhibited in the early 1850s, Taylor became
symbolic of the possibility for courage and honor in the rejection of a dueling
culture increasingly seen as outdated. Taylor had indicated his bravery as both
the commander-in-chief and the leader of the American troops at Buena Vista,
and as such, his prevention of the duel stood as an indication that manliness and
respect could be reaffirmed by repudiating, rather than engaging in, an affair of
honor.13
12
Farmer’s Cabinet, March 7, 1850; “Contradictory,” Albany Evening Journal, February 28, 1850; “The Rumored Duel,”
New York Tribune, February 26, 1850; “Settlement of the Bissell and Davis Difficulty,” Sun, February 27, 1850;
Frank Towers, The urban South and the coming of the Civil War (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004),
113 – 114; David Grimsted, American mobbing, 1828-1861: toward Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press,
1998), 237.
13
“A Peace-maker,” Vermont Watchman and State Journal, March 7, 1850; “A Peace-Maker,” Daily Scioto Gazette,
March 5, 1850; “A Peace-Maker,” Milwaukee Daily Sentinel, March 11, 1850; “From Our New York
Correspondent,” Milwaukee Daily Sentinel, March 15, 1850.
11
intersections
Autumn 2012
In some newspapers, discussion of the Davis-Bissell conflict was directed toward
the context of sectional tensions out of which the duel arose. The Baltimore Sun
commented briefly that if a duel had occurred, it, “would have been on
exclusively sectional grounds,” implying that the nature of the affair was
fundamentally about Bissell’s speech and the discord between the North and the
South that it discussed. Other papers derived arguments about the sectional
character of the duel from their partisan affiliations and biases. Most notably, the
anti-slavery New York Tribune ran a stark condemnation of Davis’ challenge,
avowing that if Bissell, “can be killed off for repelling the base insinuations
constantly thrown out against the free States … well may others shrink from the
bombast of men … who rely upon such bullying to stifle the freedom of debate
and utterance of truth,” in Congress. Like the Sun, the Tribune argued that the
crux of the conflict was Bissell’s insistent critique of Southern disunionism. But
the Tribune went further, alleging that Davis intentionally attempted to murder
and thus silence Bissell – and anyone who might speak against the South – by way
of a duel. In this way, not only did the article denounce Davis specifically and
slaveholders at large for their attempts to stifle Northern opinion, but it also
aligned dueling with Southern violence and condemned the practice accordingly.
Both of these interpretations of the duel were responses to the fundamentally
sectional nature of the speech that gave rise to the Davis’ complaint and the
possible expression of conflict between Northerners and Southerners that the
duel represented. However, such articles were rare; despite the content of
Bissell’s speech, the majority of newspapers that commented on the duel at
length did not focus on the conflict as a function of sectional tension nor discuss
it in those terms.14
The press did concentrate heavily, however, on the mutual honor of Bissell and
Davis and the sectional harmony allegedly symbolized by their reconciliation.
The independent Boston Evening Transcript ran a poem that described Taylor as
mediating between Bissell and Davis and encouraging them to, “embrace with
warmth fraternal.” Although brief, this excerpt speaks to Taylor’s role in
bringing the two parties together, who abandoned their (implicitly sectional)
disagreements in favor of national, brotherly love. Other newspapers focused not
only on reconciliation but on the equitable honor of both parties involved. The
14
“The Duel,” Sun, March 2, 1850; “From Washington,” New York Daily Tribune, February 27, 1850. The Tribune’s
partisan-driven focus on the content of Bissell’s speech is echoed in the memoirs of Gustave Körner, an antislavery politician and German immigrant active in Illinois. He wrote that the “Southern fire-eaters” had been “hurt
badly” by Bissell’s address, and Davis challenged the Illinois Congressman because “it was supposed that Bissell, as a
Northern man, would not fight, and that Southern chivalry would be vindicated.” Gustave Philipp Körner and
Thomas J. McCormack, Memoirs of Gustave Körner, 1809-1896, life-sketches written at the suggestion of his children,
Volume 1 (Cedar Rapids: The Torch Press, 1909), 557.
12
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
Whig Charleston Courier and Savannah’s Daily Morning News explained that Taylor
had revealed the “undoubted bravery” and gallantry of Bissell and Davis, who had
each fought at Buena Vista and deserved equal measures of honor. The
Democratic Daily Ohio Statesman also conveyed this sentiment of equality,
claiming that Bissell and Davis were, “equally eloquent and equally impulsive –
equally patriotic, and of course equally brave,” and expressing hope that, “we
have heard the last of any and all trouble to grow out of the feelings of the
southern members against Col. Bissell’s speech.” Although this article mentioned
the sectional and divisive nature of Bissell’s oration, it focused much more on the
resolution of conflict – both between the duelists and the sections of the country
they represented – and the matching claims each party possessed to honor, and,
indeed, to blame.
These newspapers, by portraying the duelists as alike, discarded the sectional
implications of the conflict for a story that emphasized the role of a
fundamentally national figure – the President – in bringing a Northerner and a
Southerner together. The independent and anti-abolitionist New York Herald,
while it originally scorned Davis as the challenger, ultimately produced a piece
focused on compromise. After Taylor threatened to have the principals in the
duel arrested, Davis, according to the Herald, evaded the police by “assuming a
woman’s dress, a calico gown, a straw bonnet, a shawl, and … a bustle.” This
initial portrayal of Davis as feminized and ignobly fleeing his arrest was a grave
insult to the Mississippian’s honor, casting him as unmanly and incapable of
laying claim to gentlemanly conduct. Such an unflattering view of the
Mississippian does not fit with the equality of honor promoted elsewhere.
However, once the Senator was caught, the Herald described how the President
explained to Davis and Bissell that, “they were both right, and both wrong, that
both regiments had done their duty, and there must be no fighting. … All right.
One compromise, at least, has succeeded.” The initial criticism of Davis
advanced by the Herald was replaced by a vision of Taylor and his emphasis on
parity of fault, integrity, and valor among Bissell and Davis. Perhaps more
importantly, the Herald linked the resolution between Bissell and Davis to the
larger national discussion over the Compromise of 1850, which was intended to
promote sectional harmony. In this way, Taylor’s resolution of the Davis-Bissell
conflict stood in the press as symbolic of the larger hope for conciliation between
North and South through the Compromise of 1850.15
15
“The Davis and Bissell Duel,” Boston Evening Transcript, March 6, 1850; Peter R. Knights, Yankee destinies: the lives of
ordinary nineteenth-century Bostonians (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 106; “Personal
Difficulty in Washington,” Charleston Courier, March 1, 1850; “A Duel Prevented,” Daily Morning News, March 2,
1850; “From Washington,” Daily Ohio Statesman, March 6, 1850; “Settlement of the Duel,” New York Herald, March
4, 1850; James L. Crouthamel, Bennett’s New York Herald and rise of the popular press (Syracuse: Syracuse University
13
intersections
Autumn 2012
The Davis-Bissell conflict represented several key features of duels in the early
1850s. In the aftermath of the confrontation between the Congressman and the
Senator, criticism of affairs of honor – and honor culture at large – was applied
broadly, and the press honed in on the practical problems with dueling.
Moreover, discussion of the phenomenon of dueling also surfaced among Whigs
in assessments of Taylor as a courageous figure who resolved the tension
between Bissell and Davis without recourse to the code of honor. Most
importantly, the termination of the duel proceedings and the mutual valor of the
parties involved became reflective of hope for a larger sectional settlement.
Indeed, many of the papers that did not comment at length on the duel,
including the Boston Evening Journal, the New Hampshire Gazette, and the Ohio
Observer, noted that the affair was particularly problematic, as it occurred, “at this
time when the country is wrought to such a high pitch of political excitement.”
Referring to the heated debates over the Compromise of 1850, these newspapers
linked the duel to the contemporary tension over sectional issues; however,
rather than seeing the Davis-Bissell conflict as a symptom of the friction between
the North and the South, the press condemned it as an aberration that might
interfere with the compromise and national conciliation. The Davis-Bissell duel,
a function of sectional issues, was assessed by the press as an outdated mode of
resolving conflict and discussed in terms of the resolution of difficulties between
the North and the South.16






U
nlike the Davis-Bissell conflict, Congressional dueling in 1854 would have
greater implications in the context of sectional tension. This was due, in
large part, to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of that year. The bill was introduced to
the Senate in January after significant modification by Democratic Senator
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and with the support of President Franklin Pierce.
The act proposed to organize the Kansas and Nebraska territories by applying the
doctrine of popular sovereignty, which would enable the residents of those
regions to determine the status of slavery there for themselves. Douglas
championed popular sovereignty and justified its use by explaining that the 1820
Missouri Compromise’s prohibition of slavery north of the 36˚ 30’ line had been
“subsumed” by the provisions in the Compromise of 1850 dictating that the
Press, 1989). Interestingly, in May 1865, Davis was again depicted as fleeing arrest in a woman’s garb – but this
time, he was running to evade capture by Union forces after the fall of Richmond had forced him, as President of
the Confederacy, to evacuate the seat of rebel government. See Nina Silber, “Intemperate Men, Spiteful Women,
and Jefferson Davis: Northern Views of the Defeated South,” American Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1989): 614-635.
16
Boston Evening Journal, March 2, 1850; New Hampshire Gazette, March 12, 1850; Ohio Observer, March 13, 1850.
14
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
slavery issue would be decided in the territories of Utah and New Mexico by
local choice. Although envisioned as a way to end disputes over the slavery
question, it became the focal point of vehement sectional debate, with most
Southerners in favor of the bill and Northerners largely divided over it.
Southerners thought that popular sovereignty would give them a greater
opportunity to spread slavery compared to earlier compromises. Northerners, in
contrast, were divided over the Kansas-Nebraska measure. A vocal group was
opposed to it for reasons of economics or morality, but others supported the
popular sovereignty doctrine on the basis of idealized white democracy or as a
method of ending national discussion about slavery. In the early hours of March
4, 1854, the bill passed in the Senate, 37 to 14. Among Northerners, however,
the margin of victory was much narrower: 14 to 12.17
When the bill moved into the House, a conflict arose between Francis B. Cutting
and John C. Breckenridge that would nearly lead to a duel. Cutting, a “Hard” or
“Hard-shell” Democrat from New York, championed the principle of popular
sovereignty, and thus despite his opposition to many of the policies of President
Franklin Pierce, joined with other “Administration Democrats” like Breckenridge
in support of the Kansas-Nebraska measure. Cutting’s support for the doctrine of
popular sovereignty motivated his proposal to move the Kansas-Nebraska bill
from the small Committee of Territories to the Committee of the Whole, where
the whole House operated in committee and could thus more fully discuss and
amend the measure. Douglas’ principal ally in the House, Illinois Congressman
William Richardson, accused Cutting of attempting to kill the bill by burying it
under the large number of other items that would be ahead of the KansasNebraska measure for consideration. Cutting replied that he had no intention of
destroying the bill’s prospects; rather, he thought that several of its amendments
violated the doctrine of popular sovereignty and should be removed. Furthermore, Cutting argued that because the Kansas-Nebraska measure attempted to
establish a precedent that would settle future questions about slavery, it required
discussion and passage by the entirety of the House to gain popular legitimacy as
law. Finally, Cutting reminded the House that by a two-thirds vote, the bills in
front of the Kansas-Nebraska Act could be temporarily laid aside. Ultimately, the
House twice voted to move the bill to the Committee of the Whole, and the
motion passed, 110 to 95.18
17
Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: contested liberty in the Civil War era (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004),
9-27; S. 22, “A Bill to Organize the Territory of Nebraska,” December 14, 1853; Senate Journal, 33rd Congress, 1st
Session, March 3, 1854.
18
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, January 17, 1854, 192-195; Congressional
Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, January 20, 1854, 84-87; House Journal, 33rd Congress,
15
intersections
Autumn 2012
Despite his convincing explanation of his choice to refer the Kansas-Nebraska bill
to the Committee of the Whole, most newspapers portrayed Cutting’s maneuver
as intentionally damaging if not fatal to the measure. Papers representing
interests opposed to the bill rejoiced. In describing Cutting’s speech, the Daily
Cleveland Herald explained that, “the monster is not killed dead, but he gasps for
breath.” William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator,
described the movement of the measure to the Committee of the Whole as
“encouraging” and the enemies of the bill as “exultant.” In contrast, the Northern
Democrats who understood Cutting’s true intentions in favor of the bill
commended his behavior by passing resolutions in his support; the Young Men’s
National Democratic Club stated that his speech, “reflects a brilliant halo … and
entitles him to the gratitude of the North,” and the Democratic Republican
General Committee, “applaud the chivalric conduct of Mr. Cutting.” The
Southern press agreed with those Northern newspapers that believed the
movement of the Kansas-Nebraska bill to the Committee of the Whole had killed
it; however, Southerners disparaged Cutting in particular and Northern
Democrats in general for doing so. The Daily Morning News reported that
Cutting’s, “motion astonished everyone. The Southern members [of Congress]
denounce it as traitorous.” Raleigh, North Carolina’s Daily Register was more
combative, explaining that Cutting and the fifty-four allegedly “national”
Democrats who voted to “kill the bill” should be, “kick[ed] out of the party –
‘they have become abolitionized’ – they are ‘a miserable faction!’” and utterly
“denationalized.” Thus despite Cutting’s apparent attempt to openly discuss the
bill in the whole House and amend it to more fully fit the doctrine of popular
sovereignty, he was cast throughout the nation as destroying the KansasNebraska measure and thus interpreted and reacted to along powerful and, for
the most part, clearly delineated sectional lines. 19
Kentucky Congressman John C. Breckenridge’s virulent and insulting response
to Cutting – and the ensuing debate between the two that nearly led to a duel –
fits within the context of the sectionalized response to what was perceived to be
Cutting’s supposed attack on the Kansas-Nebraska measure. Breckenridge was a
pro-slavery, pro- Nebraska, pro-administration Democrat. On March 23, prior
to a lengthy speech in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Breckenridge accused
Cutting of destroying the bill by moving it to the end of the House calendar and
1st Session, March 21, 1854; Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 21,
1854, 701-703; “Congress – Yesterday,” Daily National Intelligencer, March 22, 1854.
19
“How It Was Done,” Daily Cleveland Herald, March 24, 1854; “The Nebraska Bill in the House,” The Liberator,
March 24, 1854; New York Tribune, March 22, 1854; “Democratic War on the Administration,” Boston Daily Atlas,
April 3, 1854; “The Administration and the Nebraska Bill,” Boston Daily Atlas, April 10, 1854; Daily Morning News,
March 28, 1854; “More ‘Nationality,’” Daily Register, March 29, 1854.
16
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
thus smothering it beneath “a mountain” of other bills. According to
Breckenridge, the support given to Cutting by opponents of the measure made it
clear that the New York Congressman had damaged the bill. He concluded that
Cutting was a traitor to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its supporters; moving to
refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole, “was the act of a man who throws
his arm in apparently friendly embrace around another, saying, ‘How is it with
thee, brother?’ and at the same time covertly stabs him to the heart.” This
accusation of lying and disloyalty was a direct insult to Cutting’s honor and could
not be brooked. Cutting responded on March 27. After reiterating the points
about his principled support of popular sovereignty and the ease with which the
other bills in front of the Kansas-Nebraska Act could be laid aside, Cutting
questioned why Breckenridge would set out to attack a supporter of the bill. The
New Yorker suggested that Breckenridge’s speech was, “unbecoming of a
Congressman,” a personal attack that was both, “inflammatory in style, and
exaggerated in facts.” Breckenridge replied by indicating that there were fifty
bills in front of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and that the measure would have been
discussed in the Committee of the Whole after it had been completed in the
Committee on Territories. Accordingly, the Kentuckian could not comprehend
why Cutting would move the bill to the Committee of the Whole if he did not
intend to destroy it entirely. Cutting escalated the pitch of the debate by
remarking that Breckenridge “was the last person from whom I expected,” such
disrespect, as the New York Hards had contributed fifteen hundred dollars to
Breckenridge’s campaign when he was in danger of defeat. Cutting insisted,
moreover, that Breckenridge was doing little more than arguing over the number
of measures in the Committee of the Whole, thus “skulking” behind the KansasNebraska bill’s position at the end of the House calendar. Breckenridge,
appalled, demanded Cutting withdraw the last statement; Cutting refused,
justifying it as a response to, “the most violent and the most personal attack that
has been witnessed,” upon the floor of the House. Breckenridge then accused
Cutting of intentionally lying in his description of the Kentucky Congressman as
skulking. Cutting replied that he would not answer Breckenridge’s remark,
because, “it was not here that I will desecrate my lips by undertaking to retort on
it in the manner which it deserves.”20
Later that day, Cutting sent Breckenridge a note requesting that Breckenridge
retract his claim that what Cutting had said was false or else, “make the
explanation due from one gentleman to another.” In the language of the
antebellum code of honor, this clearly meant that Cutting offered a challenge to
20
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd, 1st Session, March 23, 1854, 439-443; Congressional Globe,
House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 27, 1854, 759-764.
17
intersections
Autumn 2012
Breckenridge if the Kentuckian declined to withdraw his accusation.
Breckenridge refused to do so unless Cutting took back his claim that the
Kentucky Congressman had been “skulking.” Cutting sent a reply on March 28
professing that he had not intended any personal insult during their debate the
previous day, but Breckenridge’s representative, Colonel Hawkins of Kentucky,
declined to receive the letter, apparently because he believed he could not do so
due to Cutting’s possible duel challenge. As a result, Breckenridge never
received the message, and, accordingly, sent a note to Cutting that he intended
to “embrace the alternative” that he believed the New York Congressman had
offered: a duel. Over the course of the next several days, communication fell to
their “seconds,” Hawkins and Kentucky Congressman William Preston for
Breckenridge and New York Colonel Monroe and Illinois Senator James Shields
for Cutting. Hawkins and Monroe, the correspondents primarily responsible for
determining the precise arrangements of the duel, became quickly confused as to
which party had been challenged and thus reserved the right to select weapons.
Hawkins claimed that Breckenridge believed that Cutting’s first letter was the
challenge to a duel. Monroe somewhat disingenuously replied that Cutting’s
original note was not a challenge but a request for verbal clarification.
Breckenridge, after finally reading Cutting’s letter that Hawkins had originally
refused to receive, withdrew his offending remarks. Cutting reciprocated the
apology, and the matter was settled. On March 31, Preston rose in the House to
explain that the conflict had been resolved in a manner satisfactory and honorable
to all parties involved.21
After word broke about a potentially violent confrontation between Cutting and
Breckenridge, Northern and Southern newspapers began to heavily criticize
dueling. The Democratic Boston Post expressed its hope that, “Congress will
never present [a] parallel,” to the duel and articulated its relief that the conflict
had been amicably resolved, the only appropriate end to an affair involving two
“Christianized and civilized citizens.” While not explicitly denouncing the
practice of dueling, the article insinuated that duels had no place in politics and
that an affair of honor, brought to conclusion, was anathema to modern life and
Christian morality. The Baltimore Patriot and Raleigh’s Whig Daily Register both
printed a mocking depiction of the altercation, focusing particularly on the
absurdity of the seconds’ arrangements of a duel that ultimately resulted in the
21
Lorenzo Sabine, Notes on duels and duelling: alphabetically arranged with a preliminary historical essay (Boston: Crosby,
Nichols, 1855), 137; Benjamin C. Truman, The field of honor: being a complete and comprehensive history of duelling in
all countries; including the judicial duel of Europe, the private duel of the civilized world, and specific descriptions of all the
noted hostile meetings in Europe and America (New York: Fords, Howard, & Hubert, 1884), 438; “The Cutting and
Breckenridge Difficulty – The Correspondence Between the Parties,” New York Daily Times, April 7, 1854;
Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 31, 1854, 825.
18
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
parties standing, “as we were and hereafter shall be good friends and say no more
hard things about each other.” Playing off of Cutting’s political affiliation, the
editorial alluded to the inability of honor scuffles to end in any legitimate
solution, whether by arms or otherwise.
Other papers pointed to the meaninglessness of the affair, but in a tone much
more serious. The Whig New York Daily Times called it a, “rich commentary on
the bloody code,” and asserted that duels were a “barbarous and murderous
business” in all cases, thereby deeming this near-duel – and the practice at large –
immoral and backward. In a similar vein, the Daily South Carolinian hoped that it
would be a long time, “before another similar enactment is perpetrated,
especially originating with the members of a body that should radiate all the
calmness and deliberation of public discussion.” Similarly, the Democratic San
Antonio Ledger proclaimed its concern that dueling, “the offspring of a
superstitious and barbarous age,” had fallen into “disuse and disrepute” but it was
becoming a legitimate way for men in “in high places” to “revenge wrongs.”
Going further, the Baltimore Sun hoped that Cutting and Breckenridge “do not
contemplate an aggravation of the offence against congressional decency by
another against society at large, in a deliberate attempt to murder one another.”
Together, these three articles not only condemned dueling itself as wrong, but
criticized both Cutting and Breckenridge – men of high social standing and
responsibility – for participating in a practice that was at best outdated and at
worst institutionalized murder. In the wake of the Cutting-Breckenridge conflict,
dueling as was attacked by the press, both North and South, just as it had been
after the Davis-Bissell altercation.22
Many Northern newspapers, however, moved beyond a generalized denunciation
of dueling to applaud Cutting’s behavior and fault Breckenridge for the affair
because he was a product of violent Southern society. The Democratic Cleveland
Plain Dealer commented that although Breckenridge hoped to fight with rifles, as,
“shooting is a favorite pastime with all Kentuckians,” Cutting would, “not be
scared off, even by a Kentucky rifle.” In this way, while not attributing blame to
any one party, the Plain Dealer implied that if the two were to fight with rifles,
despite Breckenridge’s advantage due to his upbringing in a culture that enjoyed
recreational shooting, Cutting would bravely stand his ground. Other
newspapers not only praised Cutting, but blamed Breckenridge. The
22
Boston Post, April 3, 1854; “Correspondence Condensed,” Baltimore Patriot in the Daily Register, April 9, 1854;
“Latest Intelligence,” New York Daily Times, March 29, 1854; “Washington Correspondence,” Daily South Carolinian,
April 4, 1850; “Dueling in High Places,” San Antonio Ledger, April 20, 1854; “Rumored Duel,” Sun, March 30,
1854.
19
intersections
Autumn 2012
independent Boston Evening Transcript and the New York Commercial Advertiser, for
example, observed that Cutting exhibited, “gentlemanly bearing and personal
courtesy,” while, “Mr. Breckenridge was, from first to last, the aggressor.”
Although Cutting did technically act as the challenging party, this assessment
shifted the onus of blame from the Northerner to the Southerner. Other
newspapers went further. Frederick Douglass made the relationship between the
South, Breckenridge, and violent dueling culture clear in his newspaper. He
argued that during the March 27 debate, Breckenridge, “showed himself to be
possessed of all the claims of a genuine lord of the lash,” as opposed to Cutting,
who, “bore himself like a MAN” on the floor of the House. Here, Douglass
entirely switched responsibility for the duel by applauding Cutting’s honor and
manliness while maligning Breckenridge as representative of violent slaveholding
culture. Furthermore, emphasizing Breckenridge’s “quick loss of temper” and
readiness to charge Cutting with committing treason during their debate, the
New York Daily Times asserted that this was, “characteristic of the class of
gentlemen to which Mr. Breckenridge belongs,” who, when, “dealing with
Northern men especially, whose principles or laws they have reason to suppose
fetter their hands in the matter of fighting, they are apt to play the bully.” Thus
the Times not only blamed Breckenridge’s apparent violence on his Southern
roots, but also implied that Southerners in general used force to impose their
own political opinions on Northerners.23
This indictment of Southern society, stemming from criticism of duels in general
and Breckenridge in particular, emerged primarily but not exclusively in the
Whig sector of the Northern press as an argument against the Kansas-Nebraska
Act and the extension of slavery. The Whig Trenton State Gazette and the
independent but anti-abolitionist New York Herald both posited that Breckenridge
was a tool of President Pierce to cast Cutting, the leader of the antiadministration Democrats, into disrepute. The Herald declared that it was in
Pierce’s interest to “divert public attention” from his own role in damaging the
Kansas-Nebraska bill and sarcastically commented that the President and
Breckenridge “would have been still better served had the duel been fought and
Mr. Cutting left upon the field.” In this way, the paper implied that Breckenridge
– and Pierce – would not have hesitated to use a duel as a way to kill Cutting and
thus further their political position. The Whig Albany Evening Journal bemoaned
this use of violence by Southerners like Breckenridge to achieve political ends,
arguing that, “it has long been the custom of the ‘Chivalry,’ when sectional
23
“The Cutting and Breckenridge Duel,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 31, 1854; New York Commercial Advertiser, in
“The Expected Duel,” Boston Evening Transcript, March 30, 1854; “Display of Chivalry,” New York Daily Times,
March 29, 1854; Frederick Douglass’ Paper, March 31, 1854.
20
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
questions were pending, to endeavor to embarrass Northern men … [by]
insisting upon a Row or a duel … the object in such cases being to place
Northern men where they must fight or be disgraced.” Other newspapers
directly connected Breckenridge’s challenge to the passage of the KansasNebraska Act and, in turn, the spread of slavery. The Whig Ohio State Journal
commented that Breckenridge had been upset by Cutting’s maneuver in the
House because he wanted to pass it in any way possible, including, “under gag,
whip and spur,” implying that the Kentucky Congressman was more than willing
to utilize violence in order to pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Going further, the
anti-slavery New York Tribune explained that the lesson the Cutting-Breckenridge
conflict, “teaches to the northern Members [of Congress] who rejoice in the title
of ‘Democratic’ is substantially this: Support the Nebraska bill or submit to be
bullied or shot.” Moreover, the Tribune alleged that the duel was part of a, “well
considered plan” to coerce, “through intimidation and violence … every
independent and northern Democrat who dares to defy the mandates of the
Slavocracy,” by opposing the Kansas-Nebraska bill. In this way, the Tribune
unambiguously portrayed the affair between Cutting and Breckenridge as an
example of the Southerners’ attempt to suppress their opponents through
unabashed violence in order to pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Whig Daily
Cleveland Herald was more specific, arguing that Breckenridge and his second,
Colonel Hawkins:
evidently meant that Mr. Cutting should fall, and we are not too
charitable to believe that the death of that man was one of the means
to be used in forcing the passage of the iniquitous Nebraska measure.
It is perhaps consistent that that ‘code,’ which finds its advocates on
slave soil, should be called in to back up a measure which was
invented for the express purposes of extending slave territory.
This article explicitly condemned the duel as a function of slave society while
suggesting that the Cutting-Breckenridge altercation was part of a plot to force
the Kansas-Nebraska bill through Congress by using thinly veiled murder to
spread slavery. Significantly, this expansion of slavery would ultimately lead to
the augmentation of Southern power – and the perpetuation of the South’s
violent political oppression of the North. Dueling was thus depicted as a
Southern practice that could be used as a way in which slaveholders like
Breckenridge could extend their “peculiar institution” and, accordingly, political
power – in this case, by passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act.24
24
“The Late Congressional Duel,” Ohio State Journal, April 4, 1854; “Cutting and Breckenridge,” Trenton State Gazette,
March 30, 1854; “The Cutting and Breckinridge Correspondence,” New York Weekly Herald, April 8, 1854; “Pistol
21
intersections
Autumn 2012
When Southern writers commented on the Cutting-Breckenridge conflict at
length, they criticized Northern coverage of the duel, both indicating and
reinforcing the sectionalism that had emerged in the Northern press. The
Democratic Mississippian and State Gazette suggested that Northern coverage had
been excessive, explaining that, “much more has been said about this affair by the
press than its importance or good taste either, can be admitted of.” The Whig
Charleston Daily Courier expressed a similar sentiment, declaring that the, “unjust
comments of the papers in this city [New York], I sincerely believe, are
calculated to excite friends of both parties, and thus make an ‘affair of honor’ a
necessity.” These Southern papers thus argued that Northern newspapers had
exaggerated the intensity of the conflict, and, in so doing, were most culpable for
the near-duel. The Democratic Richmond Examiner pushed that line of reasoning
further, condemning “the demagogue press” of the North for, “railing out against
southern ‘bullyism.’ Already are the passions of the populace invoked against
southern hauteur and violence.” This extract from the Examiner indicates that
Southerners understood that Northern papers had focused on sectional discord in
response to the Cutting-Breckenridge conflict – and condemned them for doing
so. The Daily Morning News went furthest in its censure of the Northern press,
accusing “Greel[e]y, and his co-laborers in the cause of abolitionism” of,
“exhausting the English language in search of epithets with which to denounce its
[the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s] friends,” in their coverage of the CuttingBreckenridge duel. Moreover, the paper cited the New York Herald and the New
York Sun as examples of anti-slavery agitation, associating these more
conservative or independent papers with Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune,
which was explicitly opposed to slavery. The Daily Morning News clearly
denounced Northern newspapers, particularly those of anti-slavery bent, for
casting the Cutting-Breckenridge duel in sectional terms and thereby using it as a
tool to castigate supporters of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. But more than that, by
portraying the Northern press – or at least that of New York – as almost
monolithically opposed to slavery, the Daily Morning News fed into the
sectionalism that many Southern newspapers criticized the Northern press for
fueling. Taken together, Southern newspapers pointed to the sectional nature of
Northern coverage of the Cutting-Breckenridge duel and, in so doing, exhibited
their own sectionalist understanding of the affair.25
and Bowie Knife Law,” Albany Evening Journal, April 3, 1854; “Cutting and Breckenridge,” New York Tribune, March
29, 1854; Daily Cleveland Herald, April 8, 1854.
25
“The Cutting and Breckenridge Affair,” Mississippian and State Gazette, April 14, 1854; “New-York
Correspondence,” Charleston Daily Courier, April 3, 1854; Richmond Examiner, in “Messrs. Cutting and
Breckenridge,” New York Daily Times, April 6, 1854; “The New York Press and the Sectionalism at Washington,”
Daily Morning News, April 5, 1854.
22
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
The Cutting-Breckenridge duel occurred as a direct result of sectional conflict
over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The New York Observer and Chronicle commented
that the duel was, “one of the many difficulties springing like the dragon’s teeth,
out of the Nebraska bill.” And the Public Ledger, an independent penny paper
published in Philadelphia, noted that Cutting and Breckenridge opposed one
another, “as Northern and Southern representatives” and were perceived as
symbolic, “champions … of different sections of the country.” The Ledger went
on to lament the possibility that duelists would, “convert the halls of Congress
into an arena for gladiators,” in order to solve political controversies among
Northerners and Southerners. These comments attest to the CuttingBreckenridge duel as one that, unlike the Davis-Bissell conflict, enacted the
sectional tensions produced by debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act and was
recognized in the press as such. Thus although Northern and Southern
newspapers did conduct a generalized critique of dueling as they had in the
aftermath of the altercation between Bissell and Davis, the press reaction to the
Cutting and Breckenridge duel differed markedly from its 1850 predecessor.
Rather than focusing on reconciliation and compromise, Northern papers honed
in on the sectional ramifications of the debates between Cutting and
Breckenridge and the resort to arms it nearly wrought. More specifically,
Northern newspapers in general condemned Breckenridge as a product of violent
Southern society and Whigs in particular pointed to the affair as a way in which
slaveholders could violently push their politics. The Southern press picked up on
this development, denouncing the Northern newspapers’ sectional discussion of
the duel while feeding into the very sectional tension it lambasted. The CuttingBreckenridge conflict was one produced by sectional tension and discussed in the
national press accordingly.26





T
he form and perception of Congressional dueling underwent another
marked shift after the brutal caning of Charles Sumner in May of 1856. On
May 19 and 20, Sumner, an abolitionist Senator from Massachusetts, delivered a
speech entitled “The Crime Against Kansas.” It responded to the attempt of the
Pierce administration and its allies to recognize Kansas’ illegitimate proslavery
government. In particular, Sumner maligned the architects of the KansasNebraska Act, Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of
South Carolina. His condemnation of Butler was particularly truculent; he
described Butler, a pro-slavery Southerner, as, “choosing a mistress to whom he
26
“Letter from Washington,” New York Observer and Chronicle, April 6, 1854; “Letter from Washington,” Public Ledger,
March 31, 1854.
23
intersections
Autumn 2012
has made his vows, and who … though polluted in the sight of the world, is
chaste in his sight – I mean the harlot Slavery.” This statement was unmistakably
sexualized, casting Butler as immoral and licentious and thereby taking aim at his
claims to honor. That is, Sumner argued that Butler secretly took part in a lewd
world of racial and sexual deviancy and therefore that his appearance as a
gentleman was false. Preston S. Brooks, Congressman from South Carolina and
relative of Butler, felt that Sumner’s insult could not be countenanced without
reply. Accordingly, Brooks consulted with Congressman Laurence Keitt, also of
South Carolina, on dueling protocol.
Although Brooks initially intended to send a challenge to Sumner, Keitt told him
that the abolitionist Congressman was not a gentleman and thus could not be
challenged to a duel. A duel was the means by which social equals proved their
honor; social inferiors, on the other hand, could be more summarily beaten with
a cane. Consequently, on May 22, Brooks entered the Senate chamber as Sumner
was franking copies of his speech in order to mail them to his constituents free of
charge. Brooks pronounced the libel Sumner had committed against Butler and
the state of South Carolina, lifted his cane, and began to beat him viciously.
Brooks continued to strike Sumner, who was lodged beneath his chair, while
Keitt preventing anyone from stopping the assault. Ultimately, Sumner freed
himself, staggered out into the aisle, and collapsed into unconsciousness. In the
wake of the attack, Northerners bemoaned the violence of the caning as
indicative of Southern power and aggression, and newspapers printed frequent
updates on Sumner’s condition and recovery. Many Southerners, in contrast,
applauded Brooks for striking down an abolitionist and sent the South Carolinian
canes in sympathy and solidarity.27
27
Williamjames Hoffer, The caning of Charles Sumner: honor, idealism, and the origins of the Civil War (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), 7-35, 60-62; Jack K. Williams, Dueling in the Old South: vignettes of social
history (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1980), 87-103. Between 1854 and 1856, the Second
Party System of Whigs and Democrats collapsed and American politics underwent a major reorganization. The
Whigs fractured and disappeared in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Two different parties arose against the
Democrats. The first, the Know-Nothing (or American) Party, enjoyed brief, localized success by appealing to
anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment in the North particularly and using anti-party rhetoric in both North
and South to tap into frustration with Second Party System. However, their popularity waned by 1855 because of
the extraordinarily difficult task of finding a nationally supported stance on the increasingly divisive subject of
slavery. The Know-Nothings were eclipsed by the Republican Party, which unequivocally opposed the extension
of slavery into the territories. The Republicans were supported almost solely in the Northern states and their
ranks included former Whigs, former Free Soilers, anti-slavery advocates, and estranged Northern Democrats
frustrated with their party’s domination by its Southern branch. The ideology of the Republican Party, which
praised free white labor, land ownership, and the possibility of social mobility, had broad appeal in the North. See
Michael F. Holt, The rise and fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian politics and the onset of the Civil War (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Michael F. Holt, The political crisis of the 1850s (New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 1983); and Eric Foner, Free soil, free labor, free men: the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil
War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
24
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
In the months following Brooks’ assault on Sumner, Northern politicians often
rose in Congress to condemn it. On June 21, Congressman Anson Burlingame of
Massachusetts, a Republican, delivered a speech that did just that. In his “Defense
of Massachusetts,” Burlingame upheld his state as a bastion of support for the
Constitution and refuted the charges of its detractors. In so doing, he pinpointed
the attacks – both verbal and physical – made against Massachusetts by
prominent Southerners, focusing predominantly on Brooks’ violent beating of
Sumner. Burlingame applauded Sumner, describing his speech on Kansas as
“noble in sentiment” and his bearing as that of a gentleman. He went on to
narrate the course of the Brooks assault, explaining that the Congressman from
South Carolina, “stole into the Senate, that place which had hitherto been held
sacred against violence, and smote him as Cain smote his brother.” Immediately
after Burlingame uttered these words, the fire-eater Keitt stated that the
Massachusetts Congressman was false. Burlingame replied that he refused to
“bandy epithets” and maintained that he was, “responsible for my own language,”
and Keitt, in turn, was responsible for his own. After Keitt confirmed this,
Burlingame asserted that he would stand by his words. Keitt fell silent, and
Burlingame pushed forward in his depiction of the caning of Sumner.
Denouncing it, “in the name of the Constitution … [and] in the name of the
civilization which it outraged,” Burlingame proclaimed, “strike a man … when
he cannot respond to a blow! Call you that chivalry? … Even the member
himself if he has left a spark of that chivalry and gallantry attributed to him, must
loathe and scorn the act.” Burlingame here castigated the assault on Sumner as
malevolent and ungentlemanly, a violent attack that, while sanctioned by the
code of honor, was entirely contrary to what Burlingame considered morally
sensible. He concluded that despite the brutality of Brooks’ attack, there were
men in Massachusetts, “who will not shrink from a defense of freedom of speech,
and the honored State they represent, on any field, where they may be assailed.”
Burlingame thus appealed to the honor code in order to argue that there were
Northerners who possessed the strength and nerve to stand their ground and
resist Southern aggression on Southern terms.28
On July 1, Congressman Thomas Bocock of Virginia visited Burlingame at the
National Hotel. Once he had assured Burlingame that their meeting would be
confidential, Bocock explained that he had been sent, at the behest of Brooks, to
state that the language employed by the Massachusetts Congressman was
“injurious and offensive” and to ask whether he would “accept a call” from the
South Carolinian “to answer for the offence.” Burlingame protested that his
28
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 34th Congress, 1st Session, June 21, 1856, 653-656.
25
intersections
Autumn 2012
speech did not violate Congressional decorum and denied that he had said
anything to personally impugn the character of Brooks. The matter was
apparently settled until Brooks began to prepare a speech tendering his
resignation from the House and justifying his actions against Sumner. Bocock
again called upon Burlingame, seeking a card retracting any charge of cowardice
that may have been made upon Brooks. Burlingame reiterated his former
remarks and again asserted that he had not intended to make personal charges
against the Congressman from South Carolina. The result of this conversation
was an addendum to Brooks’ speech, which was published in the Congressional
Globe on July 15. It stated that Burlingame had, “in a fair and manly way,
admitted his responsibility for all the language used in his speech and disclaimed
any intention to reflect upon the personal character of Mr. Brooks, or to impute
him in any respect with a want of courage,” and that the Congressman from
Massachusetts only stated what his, “representative duty required him to do.”
Signed by Bocock and W. W. Boyce, another “friend of Mr. Brooks,” it declared
that Burlingame had acknowledged and approved the memorandum.
Burlingame, however, had not endorsed the note, and published his own on July
21. In it, he averred that he had only sanctioned an addendum that attested to his
observation of Congressional etiquette and maintained his responsibility for the
language he uttered in his speech. To avoid any, “misapprehension in the future,”
Burlingame concluded that he now left his address to, “interpret itself …
without qualification or amendment.” Rather than equivocate, Burlingame chose
to stand by a sectionalist speech that applauded Massachusetts while denouncing
Brooks as a manifestation of Southern violence.29
Less than two hours after reading the card, Brooks sent a letter to Burlingame
through Oregon Congressman Joseph Lane, asking him to indicate where,
outside of Washington, D. C., “it will be convenient to you to negotiate in
reference to the difference between us.” Because of the capital’s prohibition on
dueling, this note implied a challenge. That is, Brooks evaded a direct breach of
the law by requesting that Burlingame suggest a location outside of the District
where the conflict might be settled. Burlingame implicitly assented to the
challenge, responding through Ohio Congressman Lewis D. Campbell that he
would be at the Clifton House, on the Canada side of Niagara Falls, to,
“negotiate in reference to any difference between us which in your judgment,
may require settlement outside of this District.” Anticipating that Brooks would
meet him there, Burlingame departed for Canada immediately after sending his
29
“From the National Capital,” New York Herald, July 24, 1856; “Affair of Honor Between Col. Brooks and Mr.
Burlingame,” New York Weekly Herald, July 26, 1856; Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 34th Congress,
1st Session, July 14, 1856, 831-833.
26
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
reply. Brooks, however, took issue with Burlingame’s selection of location, and
printed his opinion of the entire affair in the press – rather than communicating
with Burlingame or a member of his party – on July 23, while the Congressman
from Massachusetts was absent. In his description of the conflict, Brooks
complained that the Clifton House was located seven hundred miles away on a
route, “running through the enemy’s country, and through which no man knows
better than Mr. Burlingame that I could not pass without running the gauntlet of
mobs and assassins. … He might as well have designated Boston Common.”
Although discussion continued briefly between Lane and Campbell after
Burlingame’s return, both Brooks and Burlingame had been arrested – and
posted $5000 bail – in order to keep the peace, making a duel impractical. The
correspondence and opinions of all parties involved were printed in the national
press and there the conflict rested. The duel, stemming from a disagreement
over a sectional issue – that is, the assault on Sumner – ultimately resolved in
Brooks’ refusal to meet Burlingame due to his fear that Northerners would
retaliate against him because he was a Southerner who had viciously beaten a
Northerner. Thus the affair, which began as a result of Burlingame’s criticism, in
terms of Southern aggressiveness, of the caning of Sumner, ended because of
Brooks’ fear of violent Northern hostility. To the end, the conflict between
Brooks and Burlingame was an enactment of violence motivated by sectional
discord and an expression of fears about that very violence.30
The press reacted immediately and broadly to the altercation between
Burlingame and Brooks. Some Northern newspapers condemned Burlingame for
consenting to fight a duel because the institution was immoral and contrary to
Northern principles. The Democratic Wisconsin Free Democrat refused to believe
that Burlingame had assented to Brooks’ challenge, because participation in a
duel would be, “a violation of the law of God … [and] a mark of cowardice.” The
Massachusetts Pittsfield Sun and the Democratic New Hampshire Patriot and State
Gazette both argued that, “there is no necessity for Northern men to fight duels, if
they are opposed, in principle, to doing it; the only sensible and manly course is
that adopted by Wilson,” a Massachusetts Senator who had declined a challenge
from Brooks. By criticizing Burlingame for engaging in a duel because he was a
Northerner, these papers posited that engaging in a duel was a symptom of
cowardice – not an indication of bravery or manliness – and that dueling itself
was a backward institution that did not or should not belong in the North. Other
newspapers went further than reproaching Burlingame for his participation in an
affair of honor. The Boston Daily Advertiser explained that future Northern
30
“A Card,” Daily National Intelligencer, August 7, 1856; “Affair of Honor Between Col. Brooks and Mr. Burlingame,”
New York Weekly Herald, July 26, 1856; Boston Daily Advertiser, July 23, 1856.
27
intersections
Autumn 2012
politicians should learn to, “have nothing to do with the duellists’s barbarous code,”
because, “in this part of the country duelling is abhorred.” In a similar vein, the
independent Boston Evening Transcript and the Republican New York Evening Post
pronounced that any man who went to Washington and, “conforms to this
barbarous custom renounces his Northern origin and admits the superiority of
the people of the slave States.” These papers contrasted Northern society’s
disapproval of dueling with a South that condoned the practice. Drawing on
familiar tropes of anti-dueling rhetoric that surfaced throughout the 1850s, all of
these critical comments about Burlingame’s behavior pointed to the outdated
nature of the code of honor, its inability to prove the manliness or bravery of its
adherents, and its lack of support – in law and opinion – in the North. These
objections, however, differed from those that emerged after the Davis-Bissell and
Cutting-Breckenridge duels; rather than lambasting dueling in general terms,
these members of the Northern press condemned the practice of dueling as
something fundamentally associated with the South and thus out of touch with
contemporary society and opinion in the North. 31
Other papers more explicitly connected their censure of Burlingame with
Southern society and slavery. The abolitionist Liberator demanded, “Can it be …
that Burlingame is becoming SOUTHERNIZED?” and argued that, “A party
aiming at the overthrow of the slave power should not honor the duellist. Slavery
and duelling are twin sisters, and both are the offspring of the devil.” Similarly,
the Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette commented that dueling,
“is the twin brother of slavery … it is the effort of violence against reason.”
Going further, the Republican Milwaukee Daily Sentinel asserted that, “SLAVERY
is the Law of Force, and by force only can it be maintained, defended or
justified.” Accordingly, this paper was unsurprised that Brooks was involved in a
duel but shocked that, “men can be found in the Free North to uphold this
accursed institution.” Creating a direct and explicit connection between slavery
and dueling, these members of the Northern press reproached Burlingame for
participating in and thereby implicitly supporting a practice intrinsically linked to
the South’s “peculiar institution” – and thus directly contrary to liberty and free
will. Burlingame was condemned for accepting a challenge to a duel because the
practice was a product of the violence perceived as endemic to slaveholding
Southern society.32
31
Wisconsin Free Democrat, July 30, 1856; “Brooks and Burlingame,” New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette, July 30,
1856; Pittsfield Sun, August 21, 1856 ; “Mr. Burlingame,” Boston Daily Advertiser, July 29, 1856; “Mr. Burlingame,”
Boston Daily Advertiser, July 24, 1856; “Duelling – Representative Burlingame!” New York Evening Post, quoted in
Boston Evening Transcript, July 24, 1856.
32
The Liberator, August 22, 1856; “Brooks and Burlingame,” The Liberator, August 22, 1856; “A Duel in Prospect,”
Milwaukee Daily Sentinel,” July 23, 1856; North American and United States Gazette, July 25, 1856.
28
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
Much of the Northern press, however, denounced Brooks, not Burlingame.
Many newspapers focused on Brooks’ cowardice, arguing in particular that his
refusal to meet Burlingame at the Clifton House stood as evidence of his lack of
nerve. The Philadelphia Saturday Evening Post wryly commented that since
Brooks, as representative of Southern duelists in general, was so afraid of
Canada, “all Congressmen who are opposed to the ridiculous and criminal habit
of duelling … should chalk ‘CANADA’ upon their hats, which word should be
sufficient to render a challenge entirely inoperative.” In this way, the Saturday
Evening Post condemned affairs of honor while castigating all Southern duelists as
easily cowed by the prospect of traveling through the North. More specifically, a
poem by William Cullen Bryant, originally published anonymously in his
newspaper, the New York Evening Post, mocked Brooks for his fear of Northerners
like the, “savages hunting New York Bay, / To murder strangers that pass that
way; / The Quaker Garrison keeps them in pay, / And they kill at least a score a
day.” Each verse ended with the rhythmic lines, “And I am afraid, afraid, afraid, /
Bully Brooks is afraid.” By discussing Northerners – like the pacifist Garrison –
who were categorically opposed to violence, Bryant underscored the absurdity of
Brooks’ fear of moving through the North and thus portrayed him as shirking
from the duel for no reason whatsoever. New York’s Jamestown Journal argued
that the reason Brooks refused to go to Canada was, “because he was made
acquainted with the fact that Mr. Burlingame had nerves like iron, that he was a
dead shot, and that he had selected the rifle as the weapon to be used in combat.”
Here, the Journal contrasted Brooks’ refusal to fight with Burlingame’s skill,
thereby implicitly attesting to Northern strength and Southern cowardice. The
independent, anti-abolitionist New York Herald explicitly connected this notion of
Burlingame’s vigor with Brooks’ evasion of a duel in Canada. The Herald noted
correctly that traveling for a few days or leaving the country to fight a duel was
not at all uncommon, and Burlingame was fully justified in his selection of the
Clifton House as a meeting-place. Moreover, the Herald explained that Brooks’
concern about being attacked in the North was absurd, because while citizens of
the Northern states abhorred Brooks for his assault on Sumner, that general
sentiment would not, “find expression by assaults on his person,” because while,
“that sort of thing may be common in the societies which Mr. Brooks has hitherto
frequented … it is not in fashion here.” The article concluded that Brooks left
Burlingame under the impression that his challenge had been accepted and then
published the entirety of the affair in the newspaper, all, “for the very paltry and
cowardly reason that Mr. Brooks was afraid of being shot by Mr. Burlingame’s
rifle.” The Herald thus spoke in terms of fundamental sectional difference,
aligning Brooks’ belief that his safety would be endangered in the North with his
expectation, as a Southerner, that brutality was a normative response to anger.
29
intersections
Autumn 2012
Tinged with a tone of irony, the article condemned Brooks as a coward for his
actions in the conflict because he was afraid of Burlingame specifically and
Northerners generally, who, according to the Herald, were emphatically resistant
to fighting.33
Other papers moved beyond basic assessments of Brooks’ anxiety about traveling
in the North to connect the duel with the caning of Sumner. For the Boston Daily
Advertiser, Brooks’ refusal to meet Burlingame was explained by the fact that,
“Any man, anywhere, who will deliberately assault an unarmed man, and who
deliberately plans the assault because he fears he may get flogged himself … any
such man is a brute and a coward.” Other papers more explicitly connected the
attack on Sumner to Brooks’ failure to meet Burlingame. The Republican Daily
Cleveland Herald asserted that Brooks, “measures honor and courage by the bloody
code” and, “never means to fight on equal terms; he will come up to a sitting
man, and knocking him senseless … beat him to a jelly, and he will swagger and
bluster about fighting a duel so as to make the matter public and cause his own
arrest.” In short, the Herald asserted, “Bully Brooks is a coward … Now the
world knows just how much courage there is in Brooks.” This paper described
Brooks’ caning of Sumner and his reaction to the conflict with Burlingame as
parallel, each revealing the South Carolinian as cowardly and unable to engage in
a fair fight. In this way, the Daily Cleveland Herald used the “bloody code” to cast
Brooks as failing as a man by the litmus test of his own belief system. Ohio’s
Democratic Newark Advocate and Republican Cleveland Morning Leader offered a
similar argument in a different manner. Under the heading, “A Female Going to
Fight,” these papers printed the letter of a woman who purportedly challenged
Brooks as, “punishment for his cowardly attack upon the Hon. Charles Sumner,
and for his … recent refusal to fight a man whom he had challenged – (for fear of
being killed).” She squared herself against Brooks by declaring, “let us see some
of your boasted courage! You are afraid to meet a man! – dare you meet a woman?”
Though nearly fifty, she avowed that she was, “truly anxious to do my country
some service by whipping or choking the cowardly Carolina ruffian.” Like the
article that appeared in the Daily Cleveland Herald, this anecdote linked the assault
on Sumner to Brooks’ refusal to meet Burlingame. But more than that, in terms
of the code of honor, Brooks’ manliness was seriously called into question by a
33
“Brooks and Burlingame,” Saturday Evening Post, August 2, 1856; “Brooks’ Canada Song,” New York Evening Post, July
24, 1856; Jamestown Journal, August 1, 1856; “The Brooks and Burlingame Affair,” New York Herald, July 25,
1856. As the New York Herald commented, duels in Canada were not at all uncommon in this period, as leaving the
country was a way in which duelists could dodge the anti-dueling laws of their states. In fact, a duel that occurred
less than a year earlier between two members of the New York Shakespeare Club – referenced earlier in this
paper – was settled on the Canada side of the Niagara Falls. See Daily National Intelligencer, June 9, 1855; Daily
Cleveland Herald, June 8, 1855; Boston Daily Advertiser, June 8, 1855.
30
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
woman who would challenge Brooks, assert her willingness to fight him, and
denounce him as a coward. That is, if a woman was able and eager to fight
Brooks, then why could not Brooks, a man, follow up on his own challenge to
Burlingame or face Sumner on equal ground? Whether or not this woman
existed, the newspapers used her as a way to insult the South Carolinian and
drive home the association between Brooks’ assault on Sumner, his refusal to
fight Burlingame, and his inherent cowardice.34
Beyond concentrating on Brooks’ lack of bravery, some members of the
Northern press – Republicans in particular – cast Burlingame, and his decision to
fight the duel, as righteous and justified. Despite the strong anti-dueling
sentiment that pervaded the North, some Republican newspapers applauded
Burlingame for consenting to fight Brooks. The independent Boston Evening
Transcript offered a, “word in justice to Burlingame … His conduct has been
censured, in some quarters … too hastily. … Admitting the general sentiment,
have not his constituents, in the moment of excitement, urged on the fight?” The
Daily Cleveland Herald commented that, “so far as he conceived the honor of
Massachusetts demanded such a course, he should not be censured.” While not
fully endorsing Burlingame’s actions, the Herald and the Evening Transcript set the
Congressman’s decision to duel Brooks in the context of his constituents, who,
according to these papers, commended his resolve and urged him to fight the
South Carolinian. In this way, the Herald and the Evening Transcript cast his choice
in a reasonable and honorable light. Other papers went further, more openly
supporting Burlingame’s course of action. The Chicago Journal ran an anecdote
about a Quaker man who approached Burlingame, praising him for accepting the
duel challenge and commenting that, “I am glad that thee has courage, it is a good
thing for one in thy situation.” According to the Journal, even a Quaker, part of
an explicitly and openly pacifist sect, could condone Burlingame as brave and his
actions as justifiable in context. Going further, Wisconsin’s Waukesha Republican
believed that Burlingame’s course of action was imperative to, “vindicate the
Northern position and spirit,” indicating that the Massachusetts Congressman, by
engaging in the duel, had defended the valor of the North. Together, these
newspapers candidly supported Burlingame, arguing that his refusal to
equivocate with Brooks was a testament to Northern courage. 35
34
Boston Daily Advertiser, July 23, 1856; “Bully Brooks Backing,” Daily Cleveland Herald, July 24, 1856; Cleveland
Morning Leader in “A Female Going to Fight,” Newark Advocate, August 20, 1856.
35
Boston Evening Transcript, July 30, 1856; “How the Code of Honor Works,” The Daily Cleveland Herald, July 25,
1856; Chicago Journal quote in Weekly St. Louis Pilot, August 30, 1856; Waukesha Republican quoted in Wisconsin Free
Democrat, August 8, 1856.
31
intersections
Autumn 2012
Some Republican newspapers not only approved of Burlingame, but argued that
his actions were a way for Northerners to combat Southern aggression. The
Republican Lowell Daily Citizen and News commended Burlingame for, “showing a
degree of spirit the southrons hadn’t counted on and seems to have cowed them
on their own ground.” To this paper, Burlingame was upstanding because he
confronted Southerners on their own terms through the practice of dueling. In
this way, the Citizen and News praised Burlingame for engaging in an affair of
honor while positing that the practice was primarily a Southern one. The antislavery New York Tribune made a similar argument. While maintaining that it
would never approve of dueling as an institution, it noted that the, “slaveholding
chivalry expends itself on the surprised, non-combatant and defenseless, while it
walks warily by those whom it knows to be ready and willing to fight.” Although
clearly refusing to condone the code of honor, the Tribune implied that
Burlingame – by presenting himself as unafraid – scared off violent Southern
slaveholders like Brooks and thus did a service to the North. Similarly, the New
York Daily Times spoke to the difficulties Northern representatives faced in
resisting, “the aggressions … of the champions of Slavery.” And while the Times
insisted that dueling was a social ill, it argued that if Southern Congressmen,
“maintain their determination to punish by force what they consider insulting to
themselves or their States, we prefer that Northern men should meet them in the
duel rather than fall their victims while unarmed, or while at such a disadvantage
that successful resistance is impossible.” The Times, like the Tribune, disparaged
affairs of honor while explicitly maintaining that Northern men should fight
against Southerners on equal terms – via a duel if necessary – rather than
allowing another incident like the caning of Sumner to occur. The Republican
Boston Daily Atlas made this point at more length. In an editorial discussing the
implications of the Brooks-Burlingame affair, the Daily Atlas alleged that,
“Massachusetts approves, in spite of all her pet dogmas. In her heart she loves
true courage; and even though shown through a wrong-headed system of
chivalry, she will applaud the spirit and forgive the manner of its manifestation.”
In a different article printed on the same day, the paper connected its approval of
Burlingame to Brooks’ violence, explaining that, “our Southern bullies have
reduced the formalities of the duel to a mere game, for the purpose of
intimidating Northern men,” and thus that the Massachusetts Congressman was
right to stand up to the South Carolinian. Much as the Northern press
condemned Breckenridge, this paper denounced Brooks particularly and
Southerners generally for using the duel to force Northerners to capitulate to
Southern interests. In this light, Burlingame’s acceptance of the duel challenge
was a way in which he could resist Southern power and attest to the courage of
the North – and it was for this reason, the Boston Daily Atlas argued,
32
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
Massachusetts supported his actions despite their moral opposition to the duel. In
many Republican newspapers, Burlingame was applauded for accepting the
challenge, because it enabled him to defy Southerners, like Brooks, who would
use violence to coerce Northern men.36
A cadre of Northern newspapers that were generally but not exclusively
Democratic disparaged those members of the Republican press that both
condemned dueling and supported Burlingame. The Democratic Daily Ohio
Statesman berated, “the men who profess to be imbued with the utmost horror of
duelling, the men who claim to be the sole representative of the Christian
sentiment of the North,” for being, “most eager and active in this work,” of
encouraging Burlingame to fight Brooks. The Republican Trenton State Gazette
similarly disliked the, “strange inconsistencies these papers commit,” for both
“violently opposing dueling” and, “ridiculing every man who declines to accept a
challenge.” These papers each found fault with Northern Republicans who both
professed the immorality of dueling while supporting a Northerner for engaging
in one. Others linked the Republicans’ condemnation of dueling to those papers’
denunciation of the South. Stockton, California’s Democratic Weekly San Joaquin
Republican called the “anti-‘stab and shoot’ gentlemen” inconsistent for
denouncing the “stab and shoot party” while supporting Burlingame’s acceptance
of a challenge from Brooks. More forcefully, the Democratic New Hampshire
Patriot and State Gazette explained that heretofore, “The ‘code’ has been
stigmatized, and contemptuously spit upon as the ‘slaveholder’s code.’ It has
been denounced as the legitimate accompaniment of slavery.” But now, given the
Northern support of Burlingame, “the ‘slaveholder’s code’ is honorable; now
duelling is ‘unselfish and chivalric!’” Calling attention to the Northern critique of
dueling as a derivative of Southern violence and Southern slavery, these
newspapers highlighted the apparent hypocrisy of Republican opinion. In some
ways, the anger exhibited by many of these papers was a function of their
Democratic affiliation. But perhaps more than that, their collective frustration
with Northern attitudes toward Burlingame also points to a marked shift in the
Northern press over time. Their disdain for the inconsistent views of these
Northern newspapers suggests that a sea change had occurred between 1850,
when dueling was universally condemned among Northerners and Southerners of
all political persuasions, and 1856, when a Northerner accepting a challenge was
applauded among the Republican press just as – if not more – widely than the
36
“More Chivalry,” Lowell Daily Citizen and News; New York Tribune, July 16, 1856; “Dueling at Washington,” New York
Daily Times, July 23, 1856; “Burlingame and Brooks,” Boston Daily Atlas, July 26, 1856; “The Burlingame and
Brooks Affair,” Boston Daily Atlas, July 26, 1856.
33
intersections
Autumn 2012
code of honor was criticized. These papers indicate that perception of dueling
among the Northern press had altered noticeably between 1850 and 1856. 37
Southern newspapers’ reaction to the duel also interacted with a sense of
mounting sectional discord. Unlike before, in the wake of both the Davis-Bissell
duel and the Cutting-Breckenridge conflict, criticism of dueling was entirely
absent. Instead, the Southern press noted the consequences of the BrooksBurlingame affair, concentrating heavily on the sectional motivations of the
Massachusetts Congressman. Georgia’s Daily Morning News commented that the
duel was representative of sectional tensions, and, accordingly, ominously
feared, “the probable result of a mortal recontre between representatives of the
South and North.” But other newspapers went further than just noting the
sectional character of the duel. The New Orleans Daily Picayune described
Burlingame as a pawn of Northerners seeking a, “champion and avenger of Mr.
Sumner,” who was selected because he was the sole man in New England who
accepted, “the code of personal responsibility” and could thus, “be brought
forward to do the fighting.” This was an implicit expression of the sectional
nature of the duel while taking a subtle jab at the inability of Northerners to find
more than one champion to fight for their cause. The Picayune went on to assert
that the only reason Brooks had taken the bait and opted to challenge Burlingame
was the boasting among Northerners that, “the New England rifle had scared the
Southern man.” In the final analysis, Brooks was a man of courage and honor,
while Burlingame was little more than a tool for Northern vengeance against
Sumner’s assailant. The Picayune thus explicitly condemned Burlingame as a pawn
for a North seeking to use violence to punish the South and force it to submit to
Northern will. Similarly, the Democratic Georgia Telegraph cast Burlingame as
“inducing” Brooks to challenge him and then, “sneaking out of it by an unfair
advantage and cowardly subterfuge.” Moreover, this article associated
Burlingame with the abolitionists, who, according to the Telegraph, were
undeniably, “the aggressors – they have thrown us upon the defensive – and
unless their insults and aggressions cease there must be between us and them war
of the knife.” The Georgia Telegraph thus portrayed Burlingame as both a coward
and the initiator of the duel – echoing and reversing Northern Republican papers
who castigated Brooks both for his lack of bravery and his role as the challenging
party. And by linking Burlingame to an aggressive abolitionist movement, this
paper made the South appear victimized by the North, much like Cutting or
Sumner had been portrayed as victimized by the Southern slave power. Finally,
37
“Brooks and Burlingame,” Daily Ohio Statesman, July 27, 1856; Trenton State Gazette, July 25, 1856; Weekly San
Joaquin Republican, September 6, 1856; “New England Duellist,” New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette, August 6,
1856.
34
Annie Powers
Dueling as Sectional Politics, 1850–1856
the paper, like its Northern Republican counterparts, implied a call to arms – a
willingness to fight and fend off this aggressor if need be.38
The confrontation between Burlingame and Brooks revealed – and fed into – a
high degree of sectional tension in both its course and consequences. The duel
emerged as a response to Brooks’ assault on Sumner, which was a result of
Sumner’s condemnation of the pro-slavery bent of one of Brooks’ relatives. And
ultimately, the duel did not take place because of Brooks’ fear that Northern
anger at his beating of Sumner would manifest in violent attacks on his person.
Furthermore, the newspapers’ reaction to the conflict became firmly
sectionalized. Although there was some anti-dueling rhetoric among Northern
newspapers, as there had been before, the critique of the practice disappeared
from the Southern press. Instead, the vast majority of Northern papers discussed
Brooks’ cowardice, and among the Republican press in particular, Burlingame
was perceived as righteous for standing up to Southerners who would use
violence to intimidate Northerners in order to push their politics. The Southern
press discussed the duel in similar terms, but in reverse; in the pages of the
Southern newspapers, Burlingame became representative of purported Northern
violence and aggression against the South. In this way, the Brooks-Burlingame
scuffle – and its interpretation in the press – was indicative of and perhaps
contributed to a larger phenomenon of escalating sectional tensions. The New
York Ledger spoke to this state of affairs, bemoaning that, “dueling is likely to
becoming a fashionable amusement among the people of Congress. … The
District of Columbia is lapsing into a state of barbarism.” The New York Herald
lamented the pitch of dueling in Washington and its connection to sectional
strife, exclaiming that:
all the Northern members of Congress, and many of the Southerners,
are crazy for fighting…Can we no longer discuss politics without
billingsgate and pistols?…We hear that no man walks the street
without a revolver…that Northerners and Southerners cannot meet
without scowling upon each other.
By the time of the Brooks-Burlingame altercation, duels – both on the ground
and in the pages of the national press – had become a way in which Northerners
and Southerners exercised violence as an expression of sectional hostility. 39
By the summer of 1856, William Bissell had emerged as the, “Fremont and antiBuchanan candidate” for the Governor of Illinois. Both the Daily Cleveland Herald
38
“The Ball Opening in Washington,” Daily Morning News, July 23, 1856; “Brooks and Burlingame,” Daily Picayune,
July 30, 1856; “Northern Fanaticism,” Georgia Telegraph, July 29, 1856.
39
“Revival of the Bloody Code,” New York Ledger, August 9, 1856; “The Brooks-Burlingame Affair – Barbarism at
Washington,” New York Herald, July 24, 1856.
35
intersections
Autumn 2012
and the Daily Scioto Gazette ran an article entitled the “Gallant Bissell,” which
lauded him as “chivalrous and fearless” in the conflict that nearly led to a duel
with Jefferson Davis in 1850. This piece cast Bissell as courageously defending
himself against “the Southern fire eater” and attested to Northern strength on the
battlefield of Buena Vista. It concluded that the duel was never fought because
although Bissell refused to equivocate, Davis ultimately, “withdrew his aspersions
upon the gallant men who won the victory upon that bloody field, and the
bravery of the men of Illinois has never since been questioned.” This assessment
of the Davis-Bissell conflict, focusing on Northern might in the face of Southern
aggression, was a far cry from the focus on sectional reconciliation that
dominated the press in 1850. Clearly, perceptions of Congressional dueling had
shifted markedly in the little over six years that had passed between the DavisBissell altercation and the summer of 1856. But that was not all that had
changed. Between 1850 and 1856, political duels between Northerners and
Southerners had become a form in which sectional tension was expressed, and
the press increasingly discussed them in those terms. And while papers in the
North and the South criticized dueling throughout the period, that attitude was
ultimately overridden by a focus on affairs of honor as a mechanism through
which Northerners and Southerners could combat each other and defeat the
hostility that each believed the other possessed. The Davis-Bissell, CuttingBreckenridge, and Brooks-Burlingame conflicts expose the increasingly sectional
nature of duels discussed in a popular press that, by 1856, condoned, in a limited
way, outward aggression between Northerners and Southerners. In both form
and perception, Congressional duels had become civil wars in miniature long
before 1861.40
Annie Powers graduated from the University of California, Berkeley summa cum laude in May of 2011. She is an avid
amateur Civil War historian and spent a semester of her college career at Gettysburg College in order to pursue
research in the field. She has held research positions at the Gettysburg National Military Park, Emma Goldman
Papers Project, and the California Historical Society. In addition, Annie enjoys critically analyzing popular culture,
and taught a course at UC Berkeley on the television show Mad Men, which was featured in the San Francisco Chronicle
and the Oakland Tribune.
40
“The Gallant Bissell,” Daily Cleveland Herald, July 26, 1856; “The Gallant Bissell,” Daily Scioto Gazette, August 20,
1856.
36